Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/129,377 received April 6, 2026. Claim 4 is canceled, claims 1, 5 and 6 are amended, and claims 2-3 and 7-9 are left as original.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. U.S. PGPub 2013/0113423 A1 (hereinafter Baarman) in view of Haug et al. U.S. PGPub 2022/0385106 A1 (hereinafter Haug).
Regarding Claim 1, Baarman teaches a wireless charging device (Baarman, Figs. 1-2, Element 10; Para. [0071], Lines 1-2, “wireless power supply”) for charging a to-be-charged electronic device (Baarman, Fig. 2, Element 100; Para. [0071], Lines 5-8), the wireless charging device comprising: a device body (Baarman, Fig. 1, Element 11; Para. [0071], Line 3, “housing”) comprising an upper member, a lower member and a hollow portion (Baarman, See annotated Fig. 1 below.), wherein the upper member and the lower member are opposed to each other, and the hollow portion is formed in the upper member (Baarman, As illustrated in Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
340
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
362
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure disposed within the device body (Baarman, Figs. 6-9, Element 18’; Para. [0085], Lines 1-3, “plunger”. See annotated Fig. 7 below.) and aligned with the hollow portion (Baarman, Figs. 6-9, The hollow portion, though not separately called out, is the hole in the Charging Surface 16’ where the Plunger 18’ moves up and down, Paras. [0007], [0071], [0074], [0082], [0083] and [0085]);
wherein the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9) comprises a transmitter coil module (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9, Elements 14/14’) and a magnetic attraction module (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9, Elements 24/24’), and the magnetic attraction module is arranged around the transmitter coil module (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9, Elements 20/20’ illustrated around Elements 14/14’. Although applicant has amended independent claim 1 to incorporate the limitation(s) of previous dependent claim 4, it is the examiner’s opinion the term “around” does not teach the magnetic attraction module circumferentially surrounds the transmitter coil module by “circumferential positioning” or by being “strategically disposed at the outer periphery of the transmitter coil module” as explained in applicant’s arguments. The term “around” is interpreted by the examiner as having the meaning “in proximity to” which is taught by Baarman.),
and a lifting assembly (Baarman, Figs. 3-5, Made up of Elements 22, 26, 42-46 and 52-58, Another embodiment illustrated but not labeled in Figs. 8-9; Paras. [0075] and [0078]) disposed within the device body (Baarman, Figs. 1-9, Element 11/11’, “housing”) and located under the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure (Baarman, Figs. 1-9, Element 18/18’; Para. [0085], Lines 1-3, “plunger”), where in the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure (Baarman, Figs. 6-9, Element 18’, “plunger”) is movable upwardly or downwardly relative to the device body through the lifting assembly (Baarman, Figs. 6 and 8, Where Element 18’ is illustrated retracted or “downwardly”, and Figs. 7 and 9, Where Element 18’ is illustrated extended or “upwardly”; Para. [0071], Lines 10-15, “extendable/retractable”),
wherein when the to-be-charged electronic device (Baarman, Fig. 2, Element 100; Para. [0071], Lines 5-8) is moved to a position close to the wireless charging device (Baarman, Paras. [0007], [0010], [0017], [0074] and [0085]), a magnetic attractive force between a magnetically attractable receiver coil structure of the to-be-charged electronic device and the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure is generated (Baarman, Para. [0012]), wherein in response to the magnetic attractive force, the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure is moved upwardly through the lifting assembly (Baarman, Figs. 4-9; Paras. [0080], [0083] – [0085]), wherein as the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure is moved upwardly (Baarman, Figs. 7 and 9, Where Element 18’ is illustrated extended or “upwardly”; Para. [0071], Lines 10-15, “extendable/retractable”), the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure is moved outside the device body through the hollow portion (Baarman, Figs. 7 and 9, Where Element 18’ is illustrated extended or “outside the device body”; Para. [0071], Lines 10-15, “extendable/retractable”, and Para. [0085], Lines 5-15), and the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure and the magnetically attractable receiver coil structure of the to-be-charged electronic device are attracted by and aligned with each other (Baarman, Paras. [0011] – [0012], [0080] – [0085]), but does not teach the magnetic attraction element circumferentially surrounds the transmitter coil element as explained in applicant’s arguments.
Haug, however, teaches wherein the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure comprises a transmitter coil module (Haug, Fig. 3, Element 330; Para. [0118], “coil”) and a magnetic attraction module (Haug, Fig. 3, Element 320; Para. [0118], “magnet array”), and the magnetic attraction module is arranged around the transmitter coil module (Haug, Para. [0118], “magnet array 320 can latterly and circumferentially surround coil 330”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that although Baarman has a different arrangement of the coil and magnet within the structure that raises to align with a device to be charged, Baarman would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging coil/magnetic alignment configuration commonly understood in the art. The charging coil/magnetic alignment configuration taught by Haug, for housing the charging coil and a magnetic attraction member to assure alignment of the transmitter and receiver coils, teaches one of the many conventional charging coil/magnetic alignment configuration methods utilized in the art for assuring alignment of the transmitter and receiver coils of a wireless charging system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Haug, to arrange the components of the charging device within the housing of Baarman.
Regarding Claim 2, The combined teaching of the Baarman and Haug references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Baarman teaches wherein the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure has a sensing plane, wherein after the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure is moved upwardly through the lifting assembly and moved outside the device body through the hollow portion, there is a height difference between the sensing plane of the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure and the upper member of the device body (Baarman, Figs. 6 and 8, Where Element 18’ is illustrated retracted or “downwardly”, and Figs. 7 and 9, Where Element 18’ is illustrated extended or “upwardly”; Para. [0071], Lines 10-15, “extendable/retractable”).
Regarding Claim 3, The combined teaching of the Baarman and Haug references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1. Furthermore, Baarman teaches wherein after the to-be-charged electronic device is departed from the wireless charging device, the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure and the magnetically attractable receiver coil structure are detached from each other, and the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure is moved downwardly through the lifting assembly, wherein as the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure is moved downwardly, the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structurer is moved into an inner portion of the device body through the hollow portion, and the sensing plane of the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure and the upper member of the device body are coplanar with each other (Baarman, Figs. 6 and 8, Where Element 18’ is illustrated retracted or “coplanar”; Para. [0071], Lines 10-15, “extendable/retractable”, and Para. [0085], Lines 5-15, “flush”).
Regarding Claim 5, The combined teaching of the Baarman and Haug references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Baarman teaches wherein the transmitter coil module comprises a transmitter coil unit (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9, Elements 14/14’) and a first bracket (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9, Elements 20/20’), wherein the transmitter coil unit is installed on the first bracket (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9, As illustrated.).
Regarding Claim 6, The combined teaching of the Baarman and Haug references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Baarman teaches wherein the magnetic attraction module comprises: a second bracket (Baarman, Figs. 4-5, Element 26); a buffering pad installed on the second bracket (Baarman, Figs. 4-5, Element 22); a magnetic element installed on the buffering pad (Baarman, Figs. 4-5, Element 24); and a circuit board installed on the second bracket, wherein the buffering pad is arranged around the circuit board (Baarman, Not illustrated but inherent in a wireless charging device).
Regarding Claim 7, The combined teaching of the Baarman and Haug references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 6/1. Furthermore, Baarman teaches wherein the lifting assembly comprises: a connection platform comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposed to each other, and the connection platform is connected with the second bracket of the magnetic attraction module through the first surface; a base plate located under the connection platform; and a movable supporting element connected between the second surface of the connection platform and the base plate (Baarman, Figs. 4-5 and 8-9, As illustrated, but does not label each part individually.).
Regarding Claim 9, The combined teaching of the Baarman and Haug references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Baarman teaches wherein the wireless charging device further comprises a main board and a power input port (Baarman, Fig. 1, Element 12; Para. [0071]. As illustrated, but does not label each part individually.), wherein the main board is disposed within the device body (Baarman, This configuration is not illustrated but inherent in a wireless charging device as being incorporated into one housing or multiple housings based on the physical design constraints. See Figs. 44-45 for an alternate embodiment.), the power input port is disposed within the device body (Baarman, This configuration is not illustrated but inherent in a wireless charging device as being incorporated into one housing or multiple housings based on the physical design constraints. See Figs. 44-45 for an alternate embodiment.), a portion of the power input port is exposed outside the device body (Baarman, Fig. 1, As illustrated.), and the lifting assembly is arranged between the main board and the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure, wherein the main board is electrically connected with the power input port and the magnetically attractable transmitter coil structure (Baarman, Fig. 45, As illustrated, but does not label each part individually.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. U.S. PGPub 2013/0113423 A1 (hereinafter Baarman) in view of Haug et al. U.S. PGPub 2022/0385106 A1 (hereinafter Haug) as applied to claims 7/6/1 above, and further in view of Trice et al. U.S. PGPub 2024/0213801 A1 (hereinafter Trice).
Regarding Claim 8, The combined teaching of the Baarman and Haug references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 7/6/1, but does not teach the supporting element being a scissors-type support.
Trice, however, teaches wherein the movable supporting element is a scissors-type supporting element (Trice, Fig. 4, Element 124, “scissor mechanism”; Para. [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that although Baarman has a different lifting mechanism that raises the charging pad to align with a device to be charged, Baarman would inherently incorporate some type of conventional lifting mechanism commonly understood in the art. The lifting mechanism using a scissor-type support taught by Trice, for raising the charging pad, teaches one of the many conventional charging pad lifting methods utilized in the art for assuring alignment and closeness of the transmitter and receiver coils of a wireless charging system, and the applicant has not disclosed that this type of support solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other support types and would be at the user’s discretion to use the support type desired. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Trice, to arrange the components of the charging device within the housing of Baarman.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claim 8 of 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues Baarman employs a centralized alignment architecture where the magnet is located at the inner center of the coil. This design entails several technical disadvantages:
Structural Complexity and Aesthetic Impact: Baarman …
Mechanical Instability: A centralized magnetic attraction point is less effective …
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI): Placing a magnetic element in the center of the primary coil-the area of highest flux density-inevitably interferes with the magnetic flux distribution, thereby degrading power transfer efficiency.
Furthermore, Baarman fails to disclose or suggest the peripheral magnetic attraction module of the present application. As explicitly stated in paragraph [0077] of Baarman, the "primary ferrite 20" is configured solely to shield peripheral electronics from electromagnetic interference and to optimize inductive coupling performance. Technical analysis confirms that the primary ferrite 20 serves as a flux guide rather than a physical attraction mechanism for the electronic device 100. This is evidenced by the fact that Baarman requires a separate "primary magnet 24" to facilitate alignment; if the ferrite component were intended for attraction, the primary magnet 24 would be redundant.
From a structural perspective, Baarman's primary ferrite 20 is positioned within the inner circumference (center) of the primary coil 14. This stands in direct contrast to the presently claimed invention, where the magnetic attraction module 112 is strategically disposed at the outer periphery of the transmitter coil module 111. The present application's peripheral layout provides a superior centering effect and minimizes interference with the main induction path, a technical advantage that is neither present nor achievable in the centralized configuration disclosed by Baarman.
Examiner’s Response
Although applicant’s arguments are interesting regarding the technical advantages over Baarman, when evaluating the claims for novel or inventive ideas, it appears Baarman has the same features and performs the same functions as being claimed in the instant application. And although applicant’s arguments may be correct in discussing the technical advantages of the claimed invention over Baarman, it does not appear these declared technical advantages are novel or unique from the prior art in general, i.e. Haug appears to offer these same technical advantages and would be reasonable to assume these differences could just as well have been incorporated into the charging system of Baarman if desired by design choice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights